Cows make a ton of methane.

Also, interestingly enough, I always thought trees were good for cleaning the air, but apparently any benefit they have over their lifespan is counteracted once they rot on the ground.

 

Yes parkland, cows make a considerable amount of (so called ) pollution each day. They say between 10-20 lbs. worth, now multiply that by the 1.5 billion cattle, this on top of sheep, pigs, and horses and they say the pollution exceeds what automobiles produce. Remember matter cannot be created or destroyed.

 

10-20 lbs?

Thats insane!!!

I wonder if it would be considered cruel to have a farm, hook up gas hoses to their butts, and run a large generator and sell electricity?

 

Cow poop power:

CVPS Cow Power

And I also wonder how much methane actually leaves the cow that NOT in the poo?

One cows poo can generate 200 w of power, continuously.

5 cow could provide a solid 1 kw of power.

I think we pay about 11 cents per kilowatt hour, so in a month, 5 cows could generate about 80$ worth of electricity....I can't see that being worth it with feeding them and everything else.

 

Can we get back on topic? This isn't an agriculture or power generation forum...

 

Well fine then, I'll come out and say it.......

With the emission junk, price of fuel etc, a lot of businesses have switched to gas.
Everyone loves diesels, but accountants can't justify them.

Now that small duty diesel pickup trucks will be mostly sold to RV'ers, enthusiest, and people that don't need them, I suspect quality and lifespan will decrease, while comfort, power, and performance will increase.

My point here, is that I don't see where the pressure will come from to cause the newer diesels to be built more reliable.

Now as time goes on, emission equipment will cost as much or more than it does now, so I suspect costs will be cut other places on the truck.

 

I could fix it all but it requires way too much common sense and reality thinking.

Why do we need 400 horsepower? 350? 300?

Build a solid inline 6 diesel engine, about 4 liters in displacement, mate it to a 13 speed gearbox, keep the rpms 0-2500, engineer the fuel/air trim, use the current SCR/DPF technology if necessary.

We would be getting 30mpg unloaded, 14 or more loaded. Less fuel, less burnt fuel. Less emissions per hour. (i think I read that emissions testing for EPA compliant study is a unit of pollutant over run time, not just sticking a probe up the pipe. (did I just type that ((yes I'm almost ready for the prostate exam)).)

Navistar surely made a costly decision. Who knows why? If the parts in the EGR system were disposable, replaced like fuel filters or cleaned like the windshield, they could work it more and maybe this discussion would not be alive? Head studs? Yea, that's a big mis calculation but also result of tuning. Other than that, with current turbo and fuel injection technology, the 6.0 would be a great motor right now.

Give me a truck that has 250hp, 500 ft lbs of torque, and a 13 speed gearbox, a zero to sixty time of about 12 seconds, and I'd be happy with 30 or more MPG. I drive about 1,000 miles a week, I don't care how fast I can tug p a grade, I do care how much $$ it takes to feed my truck and get me to work and home. And, I do LOVE how clean and responsible my 6.7 is. No more washing soot off the dang trailers every week!

 

I agree with this, and perhaps this is why folks love their 7.3L engines. The problem is that the horsepower wars are alive and well in this day and age, and very few people would buy them. These trucks are high volume sales for Ford, and they have to be competitive to stay that way. IMHO of course.

 

Yep, hence my "common sense and reality" disclaimer.

 

I don't know if we have one single chance of ever getting 30 MPG on a modern day super duty, with any possible imaginable diesel engine.

I think it could be possible with a system that uses coolant and exhaust heat to expand butane, drive an air motor, then condesnse the butane in a radiator. but that is an entire different story.

Inline 6? I don't know why some people become obessed with i6 engines, all over the world there are v6 engines that match i6 engine mileage. I will say that the i6 is the only engine that is natually balanced, and also the benefit of having only 1 head.

4 liter? I don't know about that either... When talking about power/ cubic inches, the smaller displacement you go, you need better metals, and better lube. You are forcing more heat and more friction on smaller wear areas, and faces which absorb heat. This of course might be acceptable, if power is reduced. I also noticed your 2500 RPM cap, which is awesome, and I would support. That might be low enough to support steel pistons.

Recent ford/ navistar engines have defiinately been flaky. Instead of the EGR system, I'd say the entire engine has taken a huge step towards "disposable". To be fair though, dodge with the cummins has not seemed any better..... trust me, if I though that was an option, I'd be jumping ship right now. And the duramax has not fared much better, however I have to credit that engine for not generating regen temperatures from the engine. That one design feature alone has made that a far better engine for daily driver use, which most super duties also get used for, yet handle poorly. ( mostly 6.4's)

If I could re-design the current super duty diesel:

1. mechanical unit piezo injector... capable of everything the current injectors do, just uses the camshaft to compress high pressure fuel instead of a central pump and high pressure lines.

2. Ceramic coated combustion chambers, piston tops, valves, exhaust manifold, turbo vanes. With modern electronics on these engines, the motor could easily create DPF cleaning EGT's without burning fuel during the exhaust stroke. Instead of a whole frickin ordeal, just reduce the MAP to a level that creates high EGT's.

3. Positive loss tourque conveters... hydraulic positive displacement pump... can engage any gear 100% without wearing. Not only can it lock any gear, it can allow any amount of slip in any gear. I believe this alone would cause a 4 spd tranny to be better than current offerings.

4. Heavier rear end, with better cruising ratio. The 6.7 has taken a tep this way. But Ideally, it would be nice to have low cruising RPM's without overdrive. Overdrive gears are a power waste, and if you can achieve the same combined ratio, but with direct drive, you get better mileage.

5. EGR comes from AFTER the dpf, not from the exhaust manifolds. Not only will the gas be much cooler and require a smaller cooler, but it won't be oily and gross and clog the intake as bad.


Thats it for now.
lol.

 

Ah, I'm just throwing numbers out there regarding my idea of an appropriate engine for these trucks.

And I will stick to my guns on the inline 6. I had a long post written before about what an experience it is to drive that type of motor. Basically, you won't get v8 power but by virtue of its inherent balance it gives you what it's got silky smooth. I've run well over 300,000 miles between a '91 BMW and a '53 Chevy with the i6. Not diesels, but holy cow, what a fine way to turn the gears.

 

Why do you say a i6 doesn't have the same power as a v8?

While I agree an i6 is inherintly balanced, theres not much silky smooth about a 1990 mechanical cummins. lol.

 

Agreed on the diesel. Drive a 90's model BMW with the 3.5L and a manual trans. Low end torque is amazing, spins up to 7,000 rpms happily but loses power at 5500. Around town, low end is great though. I could get going at idle, only gasser I could do that with.

If I knew anything about engines, engineering, and racing, I would work very hard to build one. It just seems to be a naturally torquey motor. Diesel or gas, normally aspirated.

Tom, I'm sorry. Way off topic again.

 

I6 has perfect primary and secondary balance, but the power delivery (in terms of the spacing between power strokes) is the same as a V6, and modern 60* V6 engines are very smooth. Nothing like the terrible crude 90* V6 engines Detroit loved to use.

I also would hardly call the 4.0L I6 in my Land Cruiser, the 4.0L Jeep I6, or any I6 Diesel "silky smooth"

So have an even more complicated valve train and cam setup, vs. industry proven common rail injection? The older Bosch CP3 pumps are just fine, and they run up to 27,000 PSI. They obviously just screwed something up on the CP4.2, nothing inherently wrong with common rail.
Ceramic coating everything has an enormous cost investment associated with it. There are many other issues with doing that as well.

Diesels already have a hard enough time keeping warm in the cold. Doing all of that, the engines would never warm up.

Constant high combustion temperatures also create tons of NOx, which would require a larger SCR system or more EGR.
You're just describing a variable displacement hydraulic pump. Extremely inefficient. Modern transmissions can lock the converter in all gears, and are more efficient in OD then previous transmissions were in direct. In fact, the latest Ford 6 speeds no longer even have a direct ratio.

 

Awseome response , Lead Head.